Cell Phone Wreck Ruled Criminally Negligent Homicide

[SFC(R)L]

Jury will deliberate on punishment Monday
By PAIGE HEWITT
Oct. 3, 2009, 2:03PM

Jurors on Monday will continue deliberating punishment of a young woman convicted of a third degree felony for causing the death of a 25-year-old man in a traffic accident because she was distracted by talking on her cell phone.

Chance Wilcox died in March 2008 in the three-car accident on the North Freeway near FM 2920.

Jeri Dawn Montgomery, 24, was convicted Friday of criminally negligent homicide. She could receive probation or two to 10 years in state jail and fined up to $10,000.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6650564.html

It's all fun and games until someone gets killed.

[DLaw911]

Jury will deliberate on punishment Monday
By PAIGE HEWITT
Oct. 3, 2009, 2:03PM

Jurors on Monday will continue deliberating punishment of a young woman convicted of a third degree felony for causing the death of a 25-year-old man in a traffic accident because she was distracted by talking on her cell phone.

Chance Wilcox died in March 2008 in the three-car accident on the North Freeway near FM 2920.

Jeri Dawn Montgomery, 24, was convicted Friday of criminally negligent homicide. She could receive probation or two to 10 years in state jail and fined up to $10,000.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6650564.html

It's all fun and games until someone gets killed.I'll give you an argument. First, the driver needs to go to prison. I don't care for how long.

Second, whether cell phones use by drivers is legal or illegal, the overridding principal is the basic speed law, that is, driving too fast (or slow) for conditions.

When using a cell phone, especially while dialing, texting or sending and receicing texts or emails, if your car is moving, you're driving too fast for conditions. It is just like fog, or streets with workmen, or blind curves or intersections. No one is entitled to drive a vehicle without paying attention to the road.

I pesonally advocate making it a jailable misdmeanor to drive while usinig a cell phone EVEN to make an emergency call. NO call is a big enough emergency to risk the lives of others around you. People pick up their cell phones and dial 911 and get placed on hold, because everyone else is calling, to report a person with a flat tire. Or a dog running around on the freeway. Or a drunk driver (who will be long gone before police respond). If you need to make a call and it's that urgent, than pull over and stop. Is that so hard. so it makes you a few minutes late to something that is probably not all that important.

[malnila]

I'll give you an argument. First, the driver needs to go to prison. I don't care for how long.

Second, whether cell phones use by drivers is legal or illegal, the overridding principal is the basic speed law, that is, driving too fast (or slow) for conditions.

When using a cell phone, especially while dialing, texting or sending and receicing texts or emails, if your car is moving, you're driving too fast for conditions. It is just like fog, or streets with workmen, or blind curves or intersections. No one is entitled to drive a vehicle without paying attention to the road.

I pesonally advocate making it a jailable misdmeanor to drive while usinig a cell phone EVEN to make an emergency call. NO call is a big enough emergency to risk the lives of others around you. People pick up their cell phones and dial 911 and get placed on hold, because everyone else is calling, to report a person with a flat tire. Or a dog running around on the freeway. Or a drunk driver (who will be long gone before police respond). If you need to make a call and it's that urgent, than pull over and stop. Is that so hard. so it makes you a few minutes late to something that is probably not all that important.

I totally agree but tell the folks in that other thread who think it's their right to do whatever they want. Possibly even at the cost of a few lives. Folks wonder what's happened to our society - I call it the "Selfish Society" now. It's all about "me" than being courteous to others.

[BrittleBullet]

A quick google search shows how common this is.

Last year I was driving to see my wife graduate from basic training and I almost had some idiot lady slam into the side of my car. Luckily I'm constantly on the look out for such idiots so I saw her coming from the on ramp and merging through two lanes. I had to swerve into the next lane and the idiot was of course completely oblivious to just what happened. I know it was completely due to her using a cell phone because I was watched this lady yammer on her cell phone as this was happening. I hate to use my personal story as an excuse to be against idiots using their cellphones while driving, but this is way too common.

[Sinister Rouge]

Your right to prattle on about nothing is not as important as my right to drive safely.

[Creefer]

So, no need for any new laws, IMO. Wreckless driving is wreckless driving.

[DougBH]

A taxi driver I was talking to said he was parked at a red light and rear ended by a woman who was talking on her cell phone. When she got out of the car to observe the damage, she'd done, she continued her cell phone conversation.

It is amazing that a specific law would be required to ban texting or talking on the phone while driving. Its kind of like having a law saying its illegal to read the newspaper while driving. But if this stuff keeps up, we'll need such laws.

[DougBH]

So, no need for any new laws, IMO. Wreckless driving is wreckless driving.

Maybe, as long as they make it per se reckless driving to drive while talking on the phone, just as it would be to be reading a newspaper while driving. And unfortunately, its not wreckless driving. Its more like wreck filled.

[sisyphus]

The solution is keep your eyes open, drive something big, and let them die.
It will clean out the shallow end of the gene pool.;)

[smyrna]

Jury will deliberate on punishment Monday
By PAIGE HEWITT
Oct. 3, 2009, 2:03PM

Jurors on Monday will continue deliberating punishment of a young woman convicted of a third degree felony for causing the death of a 25-year-old man in a traffic accident because she was distracted by talking on her cell phone.

Chance Wilcox died in March 2008 in the three-car accident on the North Freeway near FM 2920.

Jeri Dawn Montgomery, 24, was convicted Friday of criminally negligent homicide. She could receive probation or two to 10 years in state jail and fined up to $10,000.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6650564.html

It's all fun and games until someone gets killed.

This is a sad tale and my prayers to both families.

Yesterday, I went dove hunting with a friend and his son. We all had a great time and my friend and I celebrated with a few drinky-poos. The son drove and I noticed him messing with his cell phone. He was texting while driving us. I spoke up and said...Roston, I'd rather take my chances with my drunk ass and concentrating than your distracted, sober one. He put the phone down.:mrgreen:

[SFC(R)L]

This was a tragedy all around.

Put down the ******* cell phone.

[NascarGirl2448]

I pesonally advocate making it a jailable misdmeanor to drive while usinig a cell phone EVEN to make an emergency call. NO call is a big enough emergency to risk the lives of others around you. People pick up their cell phones and dial 911 and get placed on hold, because everyone else is calling, to report a person with a flat tire. Or a dog running around on the freeway. Or a drunk driver (who will be long gone before police respond). If you need to make a call and it's that urgent, than pull over and stop. Is that so hard. so it makes you a few minutes late to something that is probably not all that important.

When the cops get all the electronic gizmos out of THEIR cars, then MAYBE. Until then, leave the rest of us alone. Nothing is more aggravating than the stupid politicians letting cops get away with everything, and making more stupid laws just to raise revenue in the name of "safety." Thank you very much nanny state, but I can take care of myself.

[malnila]

When the cops get all the electronic gizmos out of THEIR cars, then MAYBE. Until then, leave the rest of us alone. Nothing is more aggravating than the stupid politicians letting cops get away with everything, and making more stupid laws just to raise revenue in the name of "safety." Thank you very much nanny state, but I can take care of myself.

Then I will pray that nothing bad happens to you while you're texting away. Or if something bad happens, it's just you involved and no innocent person is involved with you.

(No, I'm not attacking you. Just trying to make a point.)

[jimjames418]

Then I will pray that nothing bad happens to you while you're texting away. Or if something bad happens, it's just you involved and no innocent person is involved with you.

(No, I'm not attacking you. Just trying to make a point.)
You can tell who is of the "ME" generation by the things they post. Nothing matters in this world except them and what they desire. :evil:

[NascarGirl2448]

Then I will pray that nothing bad happens to you while you're texting away. Or if something bad happens, it's just you involved and no innocent person is involved with you.

(No, I'm not attacking you. Just trying to make a point.)

So you don't find it rather ironic that the cops can have the entire inventory of Best Buy in their cars, yet we mere citizens have to be "protected" from ourselves by the nanny state?

[NascarGirl2448]

You can tell who is of the "ME" generation by the things they post. Nothing matters in this world except them and what they desire. :evil:

Or those of us who can see right through the nanny state and their double standards and are downright sick of it.

[Antrel]

My friend rear-ended another vehicle. She was changing stations on the radio.

[malnila]

So you don't find it rather ironic that the cops can have the entire inventory of Best Buy in their cars, yet we mere citizens have to be "protected" from ourselves by the nanny state?

No I don't see a thing wrong with police having electronics in their car. It's a helluva lot faster for them to find background on a person or license plate then having to wait for a dispatcher to find out for them. Besides, it's very rare police cause traffic accidents because they're typing on their computer or whatever. They have much better sense then the "me generation" as jim so eloquently put it. They do wait to do all that after pulling over a suspicious vehicle. They also have a lot of defensive driving skills because of those who have no sense and talk or text while driving. I can't tell you how many times I've see California Highway Patrol following someone for miles because they don't even hear/see red lights flashing because their music is up too loud (we have a law against that also) or they're so busy on their cell phones. But let me guess, you love your music up loud too. How can you hear when a fire truck is trying to pass you in order to go put out a fire or save a life????

[DLaw911]

I totally agree but tell the folks in that other thread who think it's their right to do whatever they want. Possibly even at the cost of a few lives. Folks wonder what's happened to our society - I call it the "Selfish Society" now. It's all about "me" than being courteous to others.I think some of those folks would claims it's their right to steer with their knees while they hold a cell phone in one hand, a Colt 45 in the other, and a "NoBama" sign handing from their teeth.
.
.
.
Just kidding!

[DLaw911]

My friend rear-ended another vehicle. She was changing stations on the radio.Was she changing TO or FROM conservative talk?

Well, seriously, driving is inherently dangerous.
Changing a radio station seems pretty simple to me. Maybe that person should not be driving (or have her car radio removed).

[DLaw911]

So you don't find it rather ironic that the cops can have the entire inventory of Best Buy in their cars, yet we mere citizens have to be "protected" from ourselves by the nanny state?Because in the case of police we are talking about necessities. And police are trained to not tailgate while entering license plates into their MDT's while driving and to respect their limitations. This is not a double standard. Police have had 2-way radios in their cars since long before I was born. They cannot just pull over to run a license plate of a car they are about to stop or they are pursing. Police officers drive for a living. They are experienced in defensive driving, avoiding accidents and being vigilant. I attended a CHP driving course (when I was a paramedic) years ago. Not many civilian drivers get practice in emergency manuvers and how to avoid accidents.

On the other hand BEFORE cell phones no one was complaining about the world coming to an end without the devices. People had pagers (so they could PULL over and use a pay phone). Some people had CB radio but there were few and far between -- not enough for anyone to want to ban CB's in moving vehicles. Now we have people wanting to talk on their cell phones 100% of the time they are behind the wheel -- seriously. It's like an addicting drug. Ever watch these nutjob clowns when they leave a movie theatre or get off an airplane. They cannot WAIT to get their fix of turning on their phones to make calls, text and send and receive emails. It reminds of smokers getting off airliiners RUNNING to the first legal spot they can find to light up. Cell phone users ARE frequently addicts and cannot go without their phones.

I use a cell phone for business. If I get a call while driving I answer it on my hands free and most often tell the person I am driving and will call them back. If it is an important call and I can pull over and stop, that is what I do. I consider myself to be a good driver but it's not worth the risk of killing or injuring someone just for the convenience of making a phone call RIGHT NOW, rather than in 45 seconds when you can pull over and stop.

I came within a couple of feet of killing a pedestrian last year. The nutjob lady was on a cell phone and jaywalked in the middle of the street DEAD (sorry for the pun) in front of my car. She was so engaged in her conversation she had no idea what what happening around her. I laid down 30+ feet of tread, everything in my car landed on the floor, she never looked at me despite the brake noise and I just missed hitting her. I rolled down my window and in a RELATIVELY respectful way yelled out, "Get off your phone before you get killed." She never looked at me, flipped me the bird and kept walking. She's probably 6 feet under by now.

[DLaw911]

When the cops get all the electronic gizmos out of THEIR cars, then MAYBE. Until then, leave the rest of us alone. Nothing is more aggravating than the stupid politicians letting cops get away with everything, and making more stupid laws just to raise revenue in the name of "safety." Thank you very much nanny state, but I can take care of myself.Speak for yourself. Not everyone is a prudent and defensive driver while chit-chatting on a cell phone about what makeup to buy or where to meet for lunch or dinner. When I see a driver on a cell phone (knowing it is now illegal) I usually blow my horn and stay WAY clear of that vehicle.

[DLaw911]

Then I will pray that nothing bad happens to you while you're texting away. Or if something bad happens, it's just you involved and no innocent person is involved with you.

(No, I'm not attacking you. Just trying to make a point.)You're being too nice. This is part of the epidemic of people in the US who fail to drive defensively and who only care about themselves and THEIR stupid rights, forgetting that driving is a PRIVILEDGE and some people ABUSE that priviledge.

[Antrel]

Was she changing TO or FROM conservative talk?

Well, seriously, driving is inherently dangerous.
Changing a radio station seems pretty simple to me. Maybe that person should not be driving (or have her car radio removed).I'd imagine it's an issue of glancing down to see the station frequency. It's even worse with Ipods, and people having to look down at the screen to see what song they're changing to. People checking themselves out in their rear-view mirror, people sipping on their Starbucks, people digging through the glove compartment, people looking over to their buddy next to them, people yelling at their kids in the back seat. Where do the charges for negligent homicide stop in the case of vehicular accidents? Honestly, all of those things are just as bad as holding your phone up to your head. Personally, I'm more than capable of driving one handed, and do it regularly. I multi-task pretty much every minute of every day. Who's to say that the cause of her negligence was talking on a phone? How do we even prove that?

[Talk2Bill]

I do not buy this cell phone thing. Today the number of car crashes are about the same as they were 30 years ago. But 30 years ago very few people had cell phones. If cell phones really lead to car crashes shouldn't the number of car crashes sky rocketed along with the increase of people with cell phones?

[jimjames418]

I do not buy this cell phone thing. Today the number of car crashes are about the same as they were 30 years ago. But 30 years ago very few people had cell phones. If cell phones really lead to car crashes shouldn't the number of car crashes sky rocketed along with the increase of people with cell phones?
The total number of crashes is up, but the fatalities are down due to the new safety rules and the safety devices installed on vehicles.

[DLaw911]

I do not buy this cell phone thing. Today the number of car crashes are about the same as they were 30 years ago. But 30 years ago very few people had cell phones. If cell phones really lead to car crashes shouldn't the number of car crashes sky rocketed along with the increase of people with cell phones?I don't buy that premise. 30 years ago there were FAR fewer cars on the road so I'm confident there are a lot more car crashes happening today.

[stodr]

A quick google search shows how common this is.

Last year I was driving to see my wife graduate from basic training and I almost had some idiot lady slam into the side of my car. Luckily I'm constantly on the look out for such idiots so I saw her coming from the on ramp and merging through two lanes. I had to swerve into the next lane and the idiot was of course completely oblivious to just what happened. I know it was completely due to her using a cell phone because I was watched this lady yammer on her cell phone as this was happening. I hate to use my personal story as an excuse to be against idiots using their cellphones while driving, but this is way too common.

You need to read the other topic on this. You would learned that people who text on their phone have super natural power of sight that would baffle all eye docs and you would be able to see everythimg around you, and if you can't you need to get your eyes checked.

[stodr]

My friend rear-ended another vehicle. She was changing stations on the radio.

I rear ended somebody when I checked over my shoulder to change lanes. That person had slamed on their brakes, right when my head was turned. And no I was not following too close they just changed lanes in front of me.

Maybe they should ban safety checks.

[FidelisAdMortem]

I think its a bit hypocritical that we ban cellphones, but you can eat, put on makeup, etc, its distractions that cause accidents. Since we cant create a law on "distraction" we have to act like we're doing something so we pick on cellphones.

[NascarGirl2448]

No I don't see a thing wrong with police having electronics in their car. It's a helluva lot faster for them to find background on a person or license plate then having to wait for a dispatcher to find out for them. Besides, it's very rare police cause traffic accidents because they're typing on their computer or whatever. They have much better sense then the "me generation" as jim so eloquently put it. They do wait to do all that after pulling over a suspicious vehicle. They also have a lot of defensive driving skills because of those who have no sense and talk or text while driving. I can't tell you how many times I've see California Highway Patrol following someone for miles because they don't even hear/see red lights flashing because their music is up too loud (we have a law against that also) or they're so busy on their cell phones. But let me guess, you love your music up loud too. How can you hear when a fire truck is trying to pass you in order to go put out a fire or save a life????

So I'm the only one who is sick and tired of the nanny state trying to control every move I make in the name of "safety"? Ugh. Also, I do NOT drive with my music up loud, thank you. I drive with it loud enough so that I can hear it, and maybe have it up a little louder with the window down (now that the weather is getting nicer I have my windows down more often) so that I can hear it, but unlike some people I check my rear view mirror often enough so that when an ambulance or fire truck is coming up behind me, I see it in plenty of time to get out of the way.

[NascarGirl2448]

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is a prudent and defensive driver while chit-chatting on a cell phone about what makeup to buy or where to meet for lunch or dinner. When I see a driver on a cell phone (knowing it is now illegal) I usually blow my horn and stay WAY clear of that vehicle.

See what kind of trouble stereotypes get people into?

[NascarGirl2448]

On the other hand BEFORE cell phones no one was complaining about the world coming to an end without the devices. People had pagers (so they could PULL over and use a pay phone). Some people had CB radio but there were few and far between -- not enough for anyone to want to ban CB's in moving vehicles. Now we have people wanting to talk on their cell phones 100% of the time they are behind the wheel -- seriously. It's like an addicting drug. Ever watch these nutjob clowns when they leave a movie theatre or get off an airplane. They cannot WAIT to get their fix of turning on their phones to make calls, text and send and receive emails. It reminds of smokers getting off airliiners RUNNING to the first legal spot they can find to light up. Cell phone users ARE frequently addicts and cannot go without their phones.

Pay phone? What the heck is that? Also, cell phones, like it or not, are a necessity in today's world. Those "nutjobs" at the airport are most likely business travelers who may be flying somewhere for a meeting and need to update someone on what the time frame most likely, due to airline delays and whatnot. The airlines don't always run on time, you know. Also, I've used my cell phone in the airport before. It makes a great clock to let me know how long I have to do what I have to do in between flights, buy a souvenir or two, use the restroom, or even grab a quick bite before my next flight. When I get where I am going, I will usually make a quick call to my family to let them know I'm OK. Other people may just want to gab on the phone, but not everyone is that way.

[DLaw911]

Pay phone? What the heck is that? Also, cell phones, like it or not, are a necessity in today's world. Those "nutjobs" at the airport are most likely business travelers who may be flying somewhere for a meeting and need to update someone on what the time frame most likely, due to airline delays and whatnot. The airlines don't always run on time, you know. Also, I've used my cell phone in the airport before. It makes a great clock to let me know how long I have to do what I have to do in between flights, buy a souvenir or two, use the restroom, or even grab a quick bite before my next flight. When I get where I am going, I will usually make a quick call to my family to let them know I'm OK. Other people may just want to gab on the phone, but not everyone is that way.Cell phones are not a necessity but, to the extend people find them important, they can be used in a parked vehicle. In the alternative be a passenger and then talk your brains out.

[DLaw911]

I think its a bit hypocritical that we ban cellphones, but you can eat, put on makeup, etc, its distractions that cause accidents. Since we cant create a law on "distraction" we have to act like we're doing something so we pick on cellphones.There is a law -- the basic speed law and reckless driving. What would you do if you saw a person driving 65 mph wearing a paper bag over his head? Driving without due regard for the safety of others. Same thing when not watching the road. Cite/arrest then and let a judge decide.

[chip]

I think its a bit hypocritical that we ban cellphones, but you can eat, put on makeup, etc, its distractions that cause accidents. Since we cant create a law on "distraction" we have to act like we're doing something so we pick on cellphones.

I have no problem banning hand held cellphone use.

I have serious problems with banning ALL cellphone use.

[chip]

Cell phones are not a necessity but, to the extend people find them important, they can be used in a parked vehicle.

Maybe for you as an attorney. Not so much for those of us that drive 45k or more miles a year.

[DLaw911]

Maybe for you as an attorney. Not so much for those of us that drive 45k or more miles a year.No - for me as a person who wants to get home alive and not have some selfish slob on the road kill me.

And I am not discouraing you from driving 45 mph per year. Just pull over and park when you make a cell phone call.

[chip]

No - for me as a person who wants to get home alive and not have some selfish slob on the road kill me.

And I am not discouraing you from driving 45 mph per year. Just pull over and park when you make a cell phone call.

Im not pulling over to use my cell phone. Its not gonna happen, I have a hands free system and it works wonderfully.

Ive driven well over 40,000 miles a year for the past 9 years without a single accident. Has nothing to do with being selfish.

If your gonna ban hands free use you can also ban driving with a passenger

[gdoane]

I'll give you an argument. First, the driver needs to go to prison. I don't care for how long.

Second, whether cell phones use by drivers is legal or illegal, the overridding principal is the basic speed law, that is, driving too fast (or slow) for conditions.

When using a cell phone, especially while dialing, texting or sending and receicing texts or emails, if your car is moving, you're driving too fast for conditions. It is just like fog, or streets with workmen, or blind curves or intersections. No one is entitled to drive a vehicle without paying attention to the road.

I pesonally advocate making it a jailable misdmeanor to drive while usinig a cell phone EVEN to make an emergency call. NO call is a big enough emergency to risk the lives of others around you. People pick up their cell phones and dial 911 and get placed on hold, because everyone else is calling, to report a person with a flat tire. Or a dog running around on the freeway. Or a drunk driver (who will be long gone before police respond). If you need to make a call and it's that urgent, than pull over and stop. Is that so hard. so it makes you a few minutes late to something that is probably not all that important.

People dial 911 and get placed on hold?

Can you back that up? I build 911 dispatch centers and I find that charge very disturbing. 911 calls are automatically routed so that even if the city you're calling from has every call taker busy, it goes to the next city or county or local government.

The calls are answered and tape recorded. I know because I've hooked up the tape recorders myself and the 911 dispatch operators know fully good and well that every word they say is on the record. Literally.

Distracted driving is just that. It doesn't really matter what the distraction is. It could be a cell phone or the baby fussing in the back seat trying to get out of his car seat, it's all distracted driving and there are already laws in place concerning that. We don't need more laws. What we need is enforcing the laws we got.

[DLaw911]

People dial 911 and get placed on hold?

Can you back that up? I build 911 dispatch centers and I find that charge very disturbing. 911 calls are automatically routed so that even if the city you're calling from has every call taker busy, it goes to the next city or county or local government.

The calls are answered and tape recorded. I know because I've hooked up the tape recorders myself and the 911 dispatch operators know fully good and well that every word they say is on the record. Literally.

Distracted driving is just that. It doesn't really matter what the distraction is. It could be a cell phone or the baby fussing in the back seat trying to get out of his car seat, it's all distracted driving and there are already laws in place concerning that. We don't need more laws. What we need is enforcing the laws we got.I am speaking from personal experience and from speaking to friends in various states. Particularly, in CA, 911 cell phone calls are ALL answered by CHP. I have had many an occasion to call 911 including an incident where I tried to report an attempted murder. The line was busy and when I did get a ring I was immediately placed on hold. CHP came on the line and I tried to give them the license number of the suspect vehicle (which I had memorized). I had nothing to use to write it down. As soon as I said, "I want to report a firebombing and here's the license number" I was placed on hold again and transferred to Culver City Police. Only problem was the incident was not in Culver City. I was told they could not transfer me and to call 911 again. By that time I had long since forgotten the license number. As a result no suspect were ever arrested.

Maybe things work well in AZ but not here in CA. They have been trying for years to automatically route calls to the nearest police agency based on the cell site, but that has not taken place.

[DLaw911]

Im not pulling over to use my cell phone. Its not gonna happen, I have a hands free system and it works wonderfully. I was pretty clear that I think hands free cell phone operation is OK.

I never said to ban hands free. I use hands free all the time. But if for some reason I have to speak on the cell phone, I always pull over and stop.

[gdoane]

I am speaking from personal experience and from speaking to friends in various states. Particularly, in CA, 911 cell phone calls are ALL answered by CHP. I have had many an occasion to call 911 including an incident where I tried to report an attempted murder. The line was busy and when I did get a ring I was immediately placed on hold. CHP came on the line and I tried to give them the license number of the suspect vehicle (which I had memorized). I had nothing to use to write it down. As soon as I said, "I want to report a firebombing and here's the license number" I was placed on hold again and transferred to Culver City Police. Only problem was the incident was not in Culver City. I was told they could not transfer me and to call 911 again. By that time I had long since forgotten the license number. As a result no suspect were ever arrested.

Maybe things work well in AZ but not here in CA. They have been trying for years to automatically route calls to the nearest police agency based on the cell site, but that has not taken place.

I don't know the timeline involved but that's the way cell phone service works. The cell phone call is routed to the regional first responder, here in the Phoenix area that would be Maricopa County.

I've worked on E-911 systems and there's a serious barrier to the technology because people do not want to be tracked down by their cell telephone GPS system unless and until they call 911.

Which isn't really feasible.

The last time I called 911 (for a good reason, a kid in a bike accident was bleeding in the road with a busted leg) my cell phone got locked into "EMERGENCY MODE" and it was trying to throw the GPS coordinates to the 911 dispatcher but it couldn't because it flat out did not have them.

I was camping, the telephone was off, no electricity to recharge it and if you know anything about GPS radio location you know that you have to receive signals from several satellites for the triangulation from at LEAST four satellites. With a stone cold accurate Stratum IV class clock. The 911 operator couldn't get a lock because my cell phone didn't have a lock. I was cheating like heck to even GET a cell phone signal because I was using tin foil to make a Yagi gain antenna out of my crummy cell phone Marconi class omni.

E-911 is a good idea that doesn't work because it takes receiving 4 GPS satellites and a Stratum IV class clocking source which you're not going to find in a cheap cell phone. You're tracking a signal at the speed of light. Be off by one millisecond and you're off by 186 miles (speed of light is 186,000 miles per second) so it's pretty obvious to me why your cell phone emergency call didn't result in the dispatcher knowing exactly where you were.

That's why I keep a landline at my house. If you dial 911 on a landline, they can tell where you are. Your cell phone is only as good as how many GPS satellites it's captured signal from and how accurate it's clock source is, and in all honesty, it ain't going to be that good. You can't buy a Stratum 4 clock for even quadruple the price you paid for your last cell phone.

[DLaw911]

I don't know the timeline involved but that's the way cell phone service works. The cell phone call is routed to the regional first responder, here in the Phoenix area that would be Maricopa County.

I've worked on E-911 systems and there's a serious barrier to the technology because people do not want to be tracked down by their cell telephone GPS system unless and until they call 911.

Which isn't really feasible.

The last time I called 911 (for a good reason, a kid in a bike accident was bleeding in the road with a busted leg) my cell phone got locked into "EMERGENCY MODE" and it was trying to throw the GPS coordinates to the 911 dispatcher but it couldn't because it flat out did not have them.

I was camping, the telephone was off, no electricity to recharge it and if you know anything about GPS radio location you know that you have to receive signals from several satellites for the triangulation from at LEAST four satellites. With a stone cold accurate Stratum IV class clock. The 911 operator couldn't get a lock because my cell phone didn't have a lock. I was cheating like heck to even GET a cell phone signal because I was using tin foil to make a Yagi gain antenna out of my crummy cell phone Marconi class omni.

E-911 is a good idea that doesn't work because it takes receiving 4 GPS satellites and a Stratum IV class clocking source which you're not going to find in a cheap cell phone. You're tracking a signal at the speed of light. Be off by one millisecond and you're off by 186 miles (speed of light is 186,000 miles per second) so it's pretty obvious to me why your cell phone emergency call didn't result in the dispatcher knowing exactly where you were.

That's why I keep a landline at my house. If you dial 911 on a landline, they can tell where you are. Your cell phone is only as good as how many GPS satellites it's captured signal from and how accurate it's clock source is, and in all honesty, it ain't going to be that good. You can't buy a Stratum 4 clock for even quadruple the price you paid for your last cell phone.I have all the emergency dispatch phone numbers of every police and Sheriff's Department within a 100 mile radius in my phone directory. If I don't know where I am my GPS will know.

If I have a problem I call them directly even if from my own home. In the case of my PD their response time is usually under 3 minutes (and it helps that I am very friendly with many of the officers having helped to start a fund for canine officers.

[blackcatrun]

Bann th use of a cell phone while driving is not a bad idea...pull over spots are hard to find in some citys to use a cell phone so hands free should be a better solution. Not perfect but a solution none the less.
They made a law here about distracted driving. No one seems to pay much attention as cell phone driving has not gone down at all. Walking, biking,parking lots, even getting ones mail close to the road is a new adventure of getting out alive. Nothing changed. Some one gets killed it's murder plain and simple.

The problem is bad enough to look at it as new rapidly growing problem the cost to insurance companys in 100 of millions in accidents to start charging people with crime. When the accident waiting to happen does....maybe a few more in the punishment line will get the point across enough to say keep your mind on the road not on your conversation also has a smell of a new fee and burcratic redtape waiting to happen.
I am waiting for a state rep to stand up and utterthe words: Time for the talkers to get out the check books....lets push for permits and regulate this threat to public safety.

[Buffalo]

I'll give you an argument. First, the driver needs to go to prison. I don't care for how long.

Second, whether cell phones use by drivers is legal or illegal, the overridding principal is the basic speed law, that is, driving too fast (or slow) for conditions.

When using a cell phone, especially while dialing, texting or sending and receicing texts or emails, if your car is moving, you're driving too fast for conditions. It is just like fog, or streets with workmen, or blind curves or intersections. No one is entitled to drive a vehicle without paying attention to the road.

I pesonally advocate making it a jailable misdmeanor to drive while usinig a cell phone EVEN to make an emergency call. NO call is a big enough emergency to risk the lives of others around you. People pick up their cell phones and dial 911 and get placed on hold, because everyone else is calling, to report a person with a flat tire. Or a dog running around on the freeway. Or a drunk driver (who will be long gone before police respond). If you need to make a call and it's that urgent, than pull over and stop. Is that so hard. so it makes you a few minutes late to something that is probably not all that important.
Same penalty for driving with children, talking to a passenger, turning the radio, listening to the radio, eating, drinking, looking at anything other than road or mirrors. Then I'll be fine with this.

[Buffalo]

I was pretty clear that I think hands free cell phone operation is OK.

I never said to ban hands free. I use hands free all the time. But if for some reason I have to speak on the cell phone, I always pull over and stop.
All the studies put forth to show the dangers of cell phone use find little statistical difference between hand sets and hands free sets when it comes to driving distractions.

[NascarGirl2448]

Same penalty for driving with children, talking to a passenger, turning the radio, listening to the radio, eating, drinking, looking at anything other than road or mirrors. Then I'll be fine with this.

Don't give the nanny state any ideas. The government has proven time and time again that if you give them an inch, they're gonna take 100 miles. I am NOT willing to surrender my freedom to the nanny state that easily.

[NascarGirl2448]

All the studies put forth to show the dangers of cell phone use find little statistical difference between hand sets and hands free sets when it comes to driving distractions.

And anyone who has taken statistics knows that studies can be manipulated to show anything the person doing the study wants it to. Considering most of these so-called "studies" are done by those who are advocates of the nanny state, they are not going to be objective at all. Give me an OBJECTIVE "study" of this so called "danger" and I might be more inclined to believe its findings. However, a cow has a better chance of growing wings than the government or its cronies doing any kind of objective "study."

[Buffalo]

And anyone who has taken statistics knows that studies can be manipulated to show anything the person doing the study wants it to. Considering most of these so-called "studies" are done by those who are advocates of the nanny state, they are not going to be objective at all. Give me an OBJECTIVE "study" of this so called "danger" and I might be more inclined to believe its findings. However, a cow has a better chance of growing wings than the government or its cronies doing any kind of objective "study."
I agree. And just for the "you might as well legalize drunk driving then" crowd, what inebriating chemical is introduced by the cell phone to your body?

[merickson]

When the cops get all the electronic gizmos out of THEIR cars, then MAYBE. Until then, leave the rest of us alone. Nothing is more aggravating than the stupid politicians letting cops get away with everything, and making more stupid laws just to raise revenue in the name of "safety." Thank you very much nanny state, but I can take care of myself.
Unfortunatly the driver in the OP didn't take care of the 25 yr. old dead girl. (Or was the dead girl responsible for staying out of the way?)

[NascarGirl2448]

Unfortunatly the driver in the OP didn't take care of the 25 yr. old dead girl. (Or was the dead girl responsible for staying out of the way?)

Thank you for proving my point. Punish those who act like idiots, not those of us who CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. If you want to "free" drivers from any and all "distractions" you might as well make cars that can only be driven by one person and have nothing in them other than the dashboard instruments. Oh and you might as well take down every billboard on the side of the highway.

[gdoane]

I have all the emergency dispatch phone numbers of every police and Sheriff's Department within a 100 mile radius in my phone directory. If I don't know where I am my GPS will know.

I've played with my GPS in my cell phone enough to see that it's good to about 200 feet accuracy. That's pathetic, but well within the FCC requirements of 100 Meter accuracy by 2010 for E911 GPS.

Yeah, that's right. Your GPS can be legally off by over 300 feet, the entire distance of a football field and then some. The government calls that good enough. No NFL kicker can cover that kind of distance.

If I have a problem I call them directly even if from my own home. In the case of my PD their response time is usually under 3 minutes (and it helps that I am very friendly with many of the officers having helped to start a fund for canine officers.

I call PSAPS (911 public safety access points) probably a lot more often than you do considering I maintain, install and program 911 dispatch consoles and the infrastructures that make it all happen. I know how they work and here's why it's a bad idea to call off the grid:

Most PSAPS (911), big ones anyway, operate two sides, one telephone, one radio (I work on the radio side of things, mostly). Communications take place between telephone call takers and radio dispatchers through a system commonly known as CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch).

The call takers and the radio dispatchers have very different jobs and very different tools. The call taker is trying to determine where the caller is. The radio dispatcher is determining where the first responder is gonna come from. It's really too much to expect from one person and it takes a team.

911 directs you into the team, and direct numbers take you to one person. I call the direct numbers because I usually only want the radio side, I'm sitting up on a 6,000 foot mountain radio site and I'd like to see them key it up and throw some watts around but if I had an emergency, I'd call the 911 line and get the team of both phone and radio and CAD involved because only the team has all the tools.

The last 911 dispatch station I worked on had SIX computer monitors on it. I was getting a suntan just looking at the crazy thing. FOUR computers were running, TWENTY phone lines were available and any human being sitting at the console only has two eyes and two ears. The expectations of 911 dispatchers are kind of extreme, especially for the pittance they get paid.

I'd call the main number in a real emergency and get the teamwork. Dialing a direct number may get you the quarterback, but it ain't gonna win the game. I'd rather have the team.

[FidelisAdMortem]

There is a law -- the basic speed law and reckless driving. What would you do if you saw a person driving 65 mph wearing a paper bag over his head? Driving without due regard for the safety of others. Same thing when not watching the road. Cite/arrest then and let a judge decide.

I'll have to ask my legal department about that, never was trained on issuing tickets based on general driving distractions like putting on makeup or eating.

However, simply using a cellphone is against the law, even if its not causing a distraction.

[gdoane]

I'll have to ask my legal department about that, never was trained on issuing tickets based on general driving distractions like putting on makeup or eating.

However, simply using a cellphone is against the law, even if its not causing a distraction.

I've always understood that a ticket is a bunch of ado about nothing, like a jury summons. All issuing a ticket does is agrees to a court date.

The last traffic ticket I got was kind of dumb, no proof of insurance even though I had the entire insurance policy in the car with me. The cop said I needed an insurance "card" and that the policy wasn't proof of insurance.

I got the standard "Tell It To The Judge" which to me means ARGUMENT OVER. I signed the stupid ticket, pleased the cop and he went on his way and I saw the judge two weeks later, showed him the policy, proved that I was NOT driving without insurance like the ticket accused me of and the Judge agreed with the facts presented. The ticket was summarily dismissed.

A cop giving somebody a ticket isn't a conviction, nor is it something to overthink. If I'd have actually been driving without insurance, then yeah, I'd have totally deserved the $500 fine for it. Arguments are for courtrooms, not for the highways and byways and "Tell It To The Judge" is pretty good advice as it defuses the situation rapidly.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Well Gene Im the type of cop that likes to issue tickets on infractions I know have been committed, I dont issue tickets so some person can fight it. Thats not my style.

[gdoane]

Well Gene Im the type of cop that likes to issue tickets on infractions I know have been committed, I dont issue tickets so some person can fight it. Thats not my style.

The only point I can possibly disagree with you on is that you say "I know" instead of "I believe" infractions were committed.

That's all a ticket says. A cop believes an infraction was committed.

Cops work for the executive branch of government. Law enforcement is an executive branch function. The ticket refers the process to the judicial branch of government, a reflection of the balance of powers in our system of government. That's the branch where the law is debated, so those are the people to debate the law with, and not with the executive branch guys.

I understand that police have a wide range of discretion, but that discretion should not cross branches of government because that tips the checks and balances and wreaks havoc upon the concept of the seperation of powers.

Tickets aren't a conviction. It scares the heck out of me that people think they are because those are the people who run like maniacs in high speed chases to keep from getting one.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Im not gonna give you a political correct worded answer. I know the infractions are committed on the tickets I write, I dont write them otherwise. Thats not something you might want to hear, but thats the truth.

[angelicmadrigal]

Well Gene Im the type of cop that likes to issue tickets on infractions I know have been committed, I dont issue tickets so some person can fight it. Thats not my style.

Not to mention it's a huge waste of time for all involved.

[notluzn]

If we're going to have laws against cell phones while driving then make it a law against talking to other in the car, drinking water or eating, and smoking.

[gdoane]

Im not gonna give you a political correct worded answer. I know the infractions are committed on the tickets I write, I dont write them otherwise. Thats not something you might want to hear, but thats the truth.

You're right, that's not what I wanted to hear. You fully believe the tickets have merit and that's a good standard but you're human, so you can be wrong. Either way. You can be wrong to issue a citation, and be wrong not to.

A good guy cited is less harmful than a bad guy let go, so I believe any error should be erring on the side of caution.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Again, the type of infractions I write are not subject to human error.

We'll have to part ways here.

[sgdp]

A quick google search shows how common this is.

<snip>

About 100 cases per state are caused by "distracted driving," according to the NHTSA. They include "daydreaming" and "dealing with strong emotions" in those statistics.

100 isn't a whole lot. I can Google "plane crashes" and see a lot of results, but that isn't representative of the percentage of successful/unsuccessful flights.

[NascarGirl2448]

If we're going to have laws against cell phones while driving then make it a law against talking to other in the car, drinking water or eating, and smoking.

Don't give the nanny state any ideas

[Buffalo]

If we're going to have laws against cell phones while driving then make it a law against talking to other in the car, drinking water or eating, and smoking.
None of the pro ban crowd will touch this type response. They will point out some crap study about cell phone distraction, and ignore all the distractions they have when in the vehicle. Cause we all know, it's common sense, that talking on a cell phone is far more distracting than two kids under ten having an all out fight in the backseat while you sip away at your venti latte and flip through the radio stations.

[SFC(R)L]

None of the pro ban crowd will touch this type response. They will point out some crap study about cell phone distraction, and ignore all the distractions they have when in the vehicle. Cause we all know, it's common sense, that talking on a cell phone is far more distracting than two kids under ten having an all out fight in the backseat while you sip away at your venti latte and flip through the radio stations.

These matters already fall under the "reckless driving" rules; there is no need to legislate them.

Further, these types of activities seem rather rare these days as compared to the royal jackass in the left lane who cannot drive the speed limit because they have a phone to their ear. The cell phone has become pervasive in our society to the point of distraction. Unfortunately, this now requires the attention of government as people refuse to govern themselves as they endanger the lives of others on the road.

[Buffalo]

These matters already fall under the "reckless driving" rules; there is no need to legislate them.

Further, these types of activities seem rather rare these days as compared to the royal jackass in the left lane who cannot drive the speed limit because they have a phone to their ear. The cell phone has become pervasive in our society to the point of distraction. Unfortunately, this now requires the attention of government as people refuse to govern themselves as they endanger the lives of others on the road.
So it's not illegal to drive while distracted, just to drive recklessly while distracted? Why is the cell phone any different. If I am using my cell phone, and am not the "jackass in the left lane who cannot drive the speed limit" why am I getting a ticket?

[sgdp]

None of the pro ban crowd will touch this type response. They will point out some crap study about cell phone distraction, and ignore all the distractions they have when in the vehicle. Cause we all know, it's common sense, that talking on a cell phone is far more distracting than two kids under ten having an all out fight in the backseat while you sip away at your venti latte and flip through the radio stations.

Surely you saw the responses in my thread about texting while driving. :cool:

[Remus Lupin]

When the cops get all the electronic gizmos out of THEIR cars, then MAYBE. Until then, leave the rest of us alone. Nothing is more aggravating than the stupid politicians letting cops get away with everything, and making more stupid laws just to raise revenue in the name of "safety." Thank you very much nanny state, but I can take care of myself.

For your information, driving is NOT a right. It IS A PRIVAIGE. Each state has the RIGHT to put in traffic laws to make us safer on the road.
You break the law, the state has every RIGHT to YANK AWAY YOUR DL.
Don't like laws regarding driving while texting or chatting on a cell-phone? TOUGH! You can follow it or don't drive.

[SFC(R)L]

So it's not illegal to drive while distracted, just to drive recklessly while distracted? Why is the cell phone any different. If I am using my cell phone, and am not the "jackass in the left lane who cannot drive the speed limit" why am I getting a ticket?

Unfortunately, AFTER the wreck, if it can be shown that you were involved in certain activities that distracted you from the task at hand, then you are very likely to be charged with "reckless driving" on top of whatever else might be pending, provided you survive the wreck. So de facto, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle in this manner, but the apparatus of detection and enforcement is the wreck.

Like when I hit my deer. The insurance rep asked me specifically what I was doing at the time of the incident. Was I on the phone, tuning the radio, eating a sandwich? Well, no, I was trying to avoid that damned deer.

On this point, non-hands-free cell phone use while driving is clearly visible to the world when you are doing it, and I don't care who you are, you now have only 1 hand upon the steering wheel and your attention is now divided. The fact that you or I may be competent enough to do this complex task without endangering public safety is NOT RELEVANT. What is relevant is that you are now on the road with others as a privilege, and the safety of all must take priority over your personal desires. What is relevant is that the majority of drivers are not capable of this task in sufficient numbers to warrant legislation from the authority that issues your license to drive. If you don't like it, get a horse. Or pull over, for the love of Christ, and conduct your call while at rest and in control of your vehicle. This is because eating chicken nuggets may not cause a wreck, but boneheads on the phone have a demonstrated record of threatening public safety, and the time has come to stop thinking about yourself and start considering the other people on the road.

[Remus Lupin]

Don't give the nanny state any ideas

What part of DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT do you not understand?

[sgdp]

For your information, driving is NOT a right. It IS A PRIVAIGE. Each state has the RIGHT to put in traffic laws to make us safer on the road.
You break the law, the state has every RIGHT to YANK AWAY YOUR DL.
Don't like laws regarding driving while texting or chatting on a cell-phone? TOUGH! You can follow it or don't drive.

Why can't we fight a law?

Most places are merely talking of banning cell phones. Now is the prime opportunity to say, "Hey, wait a minute, Mister Government. This ain't right."

[Remus Lupin]

No - for me as a person who wants to get home alive and not have some selfish slob on the road kill me.

And I am not discouraing you from driving 45 mph per year. Just pull over and park when you make a cell phone call.

Oh man!
I'M ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH DLAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to have a massive heart attack!

[Remus Lupin]

Why can't we fight a law?

Most places are merely talking of banning cell phones. Now is the prime opportunity to say, "Hey, wait a minute, Mister Government. This ain't right."

I'm not saying we can't!
I'm saying that the state can enact any law they feel can keep us safe. I'm against the seat belt laws, but if I want to keep my DL in Ohio, I best be wearing one and making sure
ALL MY PASSANGERS are wearing theirs.

[sgdp]

<snip>
I'm saying that the state can enact any law they feel can keep us safe. <snip>


Scary.

[Remus Lupin]

I'm all for cell-phone bans while driving. Studies do show a person drioving while texting or chatting on a phone can be just as impared as a drunk driver is.

Another thing: Here in Columbus Ohio as well as Jacksonville Florida (my hometown)
, if you are in a wreck and the police find out you were on a cell phone, guess who gets put at fault? YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Then you get to explain to your insurence companmy why the hell you were on a cell phone while driving.

[Remus Lupin]

Scary.

There is one way to avoid the laws: TAKE THE CITY BUS!

[sgdp]

There is one way to avoid the laws: TAKE THE CITY BUS!

Not every area has buses. Any more bright ideas?

[Remus Lupin]

Not every area has buses. Any more bright ideas?

Enjoy walking 10 miles to work then.
Like I said, driving is NOT a right!

[sgdp]

Enjoy walking 10 miles to work then.
Like I said, driving is NOT a right!

Okay. Nobody is disputing that point. Chill.

You said the state can do whatever it feels will "protect" its citizens. That's a scary slippery slope, for one. But secondly, the PEOPLE should be behind these laws. The People are the government, or should be anyway.

If the people against these kinds of laws stand up to them in my state, then whose place is it to intervene and say, "Stop! The government knows best!"?

[NascarGirl2448]

For your information, driving is NOT a right. It IS A PRIVAIGE. Each state has the RIGHT to put in traffic laws to make us safer on the road.
You break the law, the state has every RIGHT to YANK AWAY YOUR DL.
Don't like laws regarding driving while texting or chatting on a cell-phone? TOUGH! You can follow it or don't drive.

So you support double standards. Gotcha.

[NascarGirl2448]

I'm not saying we can't!
I'm saying that the state can enact any law they feel can keep us safe. I'm against the seat belt laws, but if I want to keep my DL in Ohio, I best be wearing one and making sure
ALL MY PASSANGERS are wearing theirs.

Dude, have you ever taken a statistics class in your life? If you have, I'm sure you're aware that the "studies" the nanny state uses to make these completely asinine laws are not exactly objective. If you can find ONE objective study, ONE, I might be convinced. Until then, the nanny state is neither wanted, nor needed.

[Remus Lupin]

So you support double standards. Gotcha.

Sorry, but I got the sense to know if I break traffic laws, the state can and will take my DL away.

[NascarGirl2448]

What part of DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT do you not understand?

What part of we the people are sick of the government treating adults like 2 year olds are you having trouble understanding?

[NascarGirl2448]

Sorry, but I got the sense to know if I break traffic laws, the state can and will take my DL away.

When the cops get the entire inventory of Best Buy out of their cruisers, I might be inclined to support such silly "laws" for us mere citizens. The problem with the way the nanny staters think is that they tend to think we mere citizens are not capable of taking care of ourselves, so they make more stupid laws instead of just enforcing what's already on the books. That would cover idiots who try and drive while yapping on their phones who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time in the first place. Stop punishing those of us who CAN walk and chew gum at the same time because of a few idiots.

[chip]

What part of DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT do you not understand?


Yes it is

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

Plenty more at link

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRight.html

[Remus Lupin]

Yes it is

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

Plenty more at link

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRight.html

And yet you can still have your DL, suspended or revoked.

[JediMindTrick]

When the cops get the entire inventory of Best Buy out of their cruisers, I might be inclined to support such silly "laws" for us mere citizens.

You do realize that police HAVE to be able to talk on their radios while driving. They can't very well pull over, tell dispatch over the radio they are going to make a traffic stop, and then race to catch up again hoping they guessed right on where the stop will actually take place.

Or how about when you call 911 in an emergency. Police have to be able to answer dispatch while driving to acknowledge they are in route. Otherwise what you suggest means they would have to find a place to pull over each and every time they talk to dispatch which is going to add minutes to their response time. On a particularly hot call, say one involving weapons, dispatch and the officer will often have a fairly detailed conversation as the officer is going to want to know a ton of details before going into a situation where he might have to use force. But time is also critical so it has to be done while driving. There are very few situations you could describe where its utterly critical that a civilian driver be talking on the cell phone while driving.

Note, I have not given my opinion on cell phone laws (it might surprise you). I'm merely annoyed that you drug cops into this discussion.

[chip]

And yet you can still have your DL, suspended or revoked.

Doesnt mean its not a right.

You can also have your ability to vote suspended or revoked. Along with your ability to walk the streets freely.

Free speech is a right but it doesnt mean you are free from regulation of it. You slander someone you can get sued. You yell fire in a crowded theater and someone is harmed you can be prosecuted.

The lists is endless and you are wrong that driving isnt a right.

[Remus Lupin]

Doesnt mean its not a right.

You can also have your ability to vote suspended or revoked. Along with your ability to walk the streets freely.

Free speech is a right but it doesnt mean you are free from regulation of it. You slander someone you can get sued. You yell fire in a crowded theater and someone is harmed you can be prosecuted.

The lists is endless and you are wrong that driving isnt a right.

Actually I'm 100 percent correct, driving isn't a right.
It is a privilige. I can very easily lose my DL if I break enough traffic lawas.
Telling a judge "It's my right to drive" won't cut it when he suspends your DL for reckless driving.

[Buffalo]

Actually I'm 100 percent correct, driving isn't a right.
It is a privilige. I can very easily lose my DL if I break enough traffic lawas.
Telling a judge "It's my right to drive" won't cut it when he suspends your DL for reckless driving.
Do you have a right to live? Cause that judge can take your life as well.

[Remus Lupin]

Do you have a right to live? Cause that judge can take your life as well.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Buffalo]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
ever hard of the death penalty? what's with the rolling eyes?

[chip]

Actually I'm 100 percent correct, driving isn't a right.
It is a privilige. I can very easily lose my DL if I break enough traffic lawas.
Telling a judge "It's my right to drive" won't cut it when he suspends your DL for reckless driving.


:)):)):)):))

In the face of all reality, deny deny deny.

Is it really that hard for you to just admit you were mistaken?

[Buffalo]

You all really worried about bad drivers putting you in danger, why not advocate stricter licensing requirements? There are 200 million people out there with driver's licenses. Most everyone knows someone who is a terrible driver, but got a license anyways. How bout we get those morons off the road.

[Remus Lupin]

:)):)):)):))

In the face of all reality, deny deny deny.

Is it really that hard for you to just admit you were mistaken?

Here in Ohio, we are told right then and there when we get our DL, drivinjg is not a right. It is a privilige.
I'm not mistaken sir. You are the one mistaken.
If driving was a RIGHT, then I don't have to worry about losing my DL. Since it is not a right, I can have my DL snatched away if I break enough traffic laws.
Am I in the ballpark?

[chip]

Here in Ohio, we are told right then and there when we get our DL, drivinjg is not a right. It is a privilige.
I'm not mistaken sir. You are the one mistaken.
If driving was a RIGHT, then I don't have to worry about losing my DL. Since it is not a right, I can have my DL snatched away if I break enough traffic laws.
Am I in the ballpark?

You not even in the stadium parking lot.

Driving is a right. PERIOD.

Just because something can be taken from you doent mean its not a right.

You have a right to life but can be executed by the state for certain crimes. According to you there is no right to life since it can be removed from you.

You have been given MULTITPLE examples of where your claim is horribly flawed, if you dont want to admit you are wrong thats perfectly fine with me but you look silly.

[SFC(R)L]

You all really worried about bad drivers putting you in danger, why not advocate stricter licensing requirements? There are 200 million people out there with driver's licenses. Most everyone knows someone who is a terrible driver, but got a license anyways. How bout we get those morons off the road.

I passed the German Licensing testing on try number one and still have my USAREUR license somewhere.

The tests consisted of a 100 item sign identification test. 5 wrong and you're a no-go.

The written test was like 200 questions.

[Buffalo]

I passed the German Licensing testing on try number one and still have my USAREUR license somewhere.

The tests consisted of a 100 item sign identification test. 5 wrong and you're a no-go.

The written test was like 200 questions.
That sounds a lot more reasonable than what you have to do here to get a DL. German cars don't have cup holders I hear.

[chip]

German cars don't have cup holders I hear.

Thats a myth.

[SFC(R)L]

That sounds a lot more reasonable than what you have to do here to get a DL. German cars don't have cup holders I hear.

I drove my Caprice in Europe...it didn't have any, either.

And until you have driven 150 MPH you have not driven.

[NascarGirl2448]

You do realize that police HAVE to be able to talk on their radios while driving. They can't very well pull over, tell dispatch over the radio they are going to make a traffic stop, and then race to catch up again hoping they guessed right on where the stop will actually take place.

Or how about when you call 911 in an emergency. Police have to be able to answer dispatch while driving to acknowledge they are in route. Otherwise what you suggest means they would have to find a place to pull over each and every time they talk to dispatch which is going to add minutes to their response time. On a particularly hot call, say one involving weapons, dispatch and the officer will often have a fairly detailed conversation as the officer is going to want to know a ton of details before going into a situation where he might have to use force. But time is also critical so it has to be done while driving. There are very few situations you could describe where its utterly critical that a civilian driver be talking on the cell phone while driving.

Note, I have not given my opinion on cell phone laws (it might surprise you). I'm merely annoyed that you drug cops into this discussion.

So in other words, you're annoyed also about the double standard in this country when it comes to who can use electronic gizmos in the car and who can't? True cops need those gizmos to do their jobs, no one is denying that. What annoys me and everyone else who can't stand the nanny state is that the cops get to do all this while we citizens have to be "protected" for our own "safety." What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

[FidelisAdMortem]

So in other words, you're annoyed also about the double standard in this country when it comes to who can use electronic gizmos in the car and who can't? True cops need those gizmos to do their jobs, no one is denying that. What annoys me and everyone else who can't stand the nanny state is that the cops get to do all this while we citizens have to be "protected" for our own "safety." What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

Are you going to apply that to all professions or just police officers?

We wouldn't want hypocricy..................

[DLaw911]

Same penalty for driving with children, talking to a passenger, turning the radio, listening to the radio, eating, drinking, looking at anything other than road or mirrors. Then I'll be fine with this.The reality is that the police do not have the resources to look for drivers who are eating, putting on makeup, tuning their radios or texting. If they observe it they are not required to issue a citation. I have one friend who has now been cited three times for texting while driving and in each case he was dialing a phone number (so he says).

But you're missing the point and I will try to spell it out for you. The law of negligence is primiliary based on a theory of breach of a duty of due care to others. Usually this has to be proven by specific conduct. But also in the law is the theory of "negligence per se" by violation of a statute designed to protect and prevent the type of harm that occurred. This creates a presumption of negligence and makes the case much easier to prove since the only defense would be whether or not the violation of the statute should be excused. So why is this important? In negligence trials it is often necessary to bring in experts to prove that the defendant breached a duty of due care. But negligence is so much easier to prove when the party sued is breaking the law meant to protect from the harm that occurred.

Compare that to a food case. The law requires that food in restaurants be stored at certain temperatures. Turns out the refrigerator was broken, the temperature was not checked, bacteria formed on sushi that was served, and a customer dies. Why should the family of the customer have to go through the hoops of proving the restaurant was negligent. Without neglience per se they could argue they were not required to manually check refrigerator temperature, that it seemed cold enough, and that this was an unfortunate accident. But with a violation of statute theory negligence would be presumed and the only issue would be the amount of damages to be awarded.

[gdoane]

You do realize that police HAVE to be able to talk on their radios while driving. They can't very well pull over, tell dispatch over the radio they are going to make a traffic stop, and then race to catch up again hoping they guessed right on where the stop will actually take place.

I kind of get into communications technology a little bit myself (I'm a factory trained tech on Motorola comm systems) and there's a big, big difference in radio traffic vs. cell phone calls. The average radio call lasts a total of about three seconds. In fact, if you key up a Motorola public safety handheld for longer than 60 seconds, it will time out on you and dekey itself to save the power amplifier from desoldering itself from the board.

Or how about when you call 911 in an emergency. Police have to be able to answer dispatch while driving to acknowledge they are in route. Otherwise what you suggest means they would have to find a place to pull over each and every time they talk to dispatch which is going to add minutes to their response time. On a particularly hot call, say one involving weapons, dispatch and the officer will often have a fairly detailed conversation as the officer is going to want to know a ton of details before going into a situation where he might have to use force. But time is also critical so it has to be done while driving. There are very few situations you could describe where its utterly critical that a civilian driver be talking on the cell phone while driving.

Something like that is where MDT's (Mobile Data Terminals) are especially useful because the officer can't drive, talk on the radio and take notes but with the MDT he doesn't have to. The information is on the screen. It's also good for pictures, which aid in identification better than a description on the radio. The combination of Radio and MDT is really the best option given today's technology.

Note, I have not given my opinion on cell phone laws (it might surprise you). I'm merely annoyed that you drug cops into this discussion.

I think it's a bit of a red herring because of the intensely different ways that radios are operated vs. how cell phones are operated. The radio is (should be) already on the right channel so placing a call doesn't involve dialing or looking up numbers or any of the things a cell phone needs to do.

[DLaw911]

So in other words, you're annoyed also about the double standard in this country when it comes to who can use electronic gizmos in the car and who can't? True cops need those gizmos to do their jobs, no one is denying that. What annoys me and everyone else who can't stand the nanny state is that the cops get to do all this while we citizens have to be "protected" for our own "safety." What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?Police cannot operate at any level of efficiency without the "gizmos" in their cars. And to compensate they are highly trained to drive defensively. However, tell me that a police officer is using these "gizmos" to make hour long calls to their girlfriend or boyfriend. By the way are you familiar with the layout of an MDT (mobile digital terminal). That "box" is designed to be mounted in a police vehicle so that an officer can operate it with minimal distraction. Large buttons, at eye view with the road, etc. Other controls such as sirens, emergency lights, PA, etc., are also carefully mounted so as to not distract the driver's attention from the road and, to the extent they do, it is only momentary. But not so with cell phone dialing or texting (a person might take his eyes off the road for 5-10 seconds or more) and, unlike police vehicles whose effectiveness DEPENDS on the "gizmos" you mention, you would be hard pressed to convince me that cell phones are a necessity for everyone else.

I suggest next time you see a police car and can look inside, do so and you will see how these devices are mounted in a way to creat minimal distraction. Just like in ambulances, fire trucks, taxi cabs. And the overriding reasons your theory is wrong is because these "gizmos" are only used momentarily. Watch people driving with cell phone and they will often talk with the phone glued to their ear and their head not moving to check mirrors or blind spots for miles and miles ... often weaving, being oblivious to surroundings, not watching car instruments and driving way too slow or fast, not signaling, etc. You don't see those things with "gizmo" drivers.

[DLaw911]

...I think it's a bit of a red herring because of the intensely different ways that radios are operated vs. how cell phones are operated. The radio is (should be) already on the right channel so placing a call doesn't involve dialing or looking up numbers or any of the things a cell phone needs to do.Very excellent point, Gene.

[DLaw911]

...snipped...German cars don't have cup holders I hear.
Thats a myth.They're called "stein holders."

[JediMindTrick]

So in other words, you're annoyed also about the double standard in this country when it comes to who can use electronic gizmos in the car and who can't? True cops need those gizmos to do their jobs, no one is denying that. What annoys me and everyone else who can't stand the nanny state is that the cops get to do all this while we citizens have to be "protected" for our own "safety." What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

DLaw and Gdoane did a good job answering for me so I'll all I add is that police have to be able to talk on the radio. In addition I don't need to hold the mic up to my ear to hear and I can hold the steering wheel and the mic in the same hand if needed. The hand with the mic will only leave the steering wheel for a second or two at a time. I don't find it a double standard - police have to be able to do it, the private citizen does not.

My thoughts on cell phones laws are that they are a bit redundant. If your driving badly because your on the cell phone I can cite you with inattentive driving, I don't need a special law.

[DLaw911]

DLaw and Gdoane did a good job answering for me so I'll all I add is that police have to be able to talk on the radio. In addition I don't need to hold the mic up to my ear to hear and I can hold the steering wheel and the mic in the same hand if needed. The hand with the mic will only leave the steering wheel for a second or two at a time. I don't find it a double standard - police have to be able to do it, the private citizen does not.

My thoughts on cell phones laws are that they are a bit redundant. If your driving badly because your on the cell phone I can cite you with inattentive driving, I don't need a special law.That true but the real intent of the law is preventing harm to the driver and and others. Therefore, by presuming negligence on the part of the cell phone user civil trials become a lot less complex (and often times unnecessary).

[NascarGirl2448]

My thoughts on cell phones laws are that they are a bit redundant. If your driving badly because your on the cell phone I can cite you with inattentive driving, I don't need a special law.

If only the idiot politicians realized that. Enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, don't go making MORE of the same stupid laws. Unfortunately most politicians don't have the brains to realize that the law they're debating already exists.

[NascarGirl2448]

you would be hard pressed to convince me that cell phones are a necessity for everyone else.

You try having an almost 2 hour commute each way every day and then tell me the cell phone isn't necessary. Besides, what good is a pay phone gonna do if you're stranded on the side of the highway because your car just broke down? Not gonna be much good if the nearest exit is a couple miles away.

I suggest next time you see a police car and can look inside, do so and you will see how these devices are mounted in a way to creat minimal distraction. Just like in ambulances, fire trucks, taxi cabs. And the overriding reasons your theory is wrong is because these "gizmos" are only used momentarily. Watch people driving with cell phone and they will often talk with the phone glued to their ear and their head not moving to check mirrors or blind spots for miles and miles ... often weaving, being oblivious to surroundings, not watching car instruments and driving way too slow or fast, not signaling, etc. You don't see those things with "gizmo" drivers.

I've seen the inside of a police cruiser, thank you. My neighbor is sheriff's deputy, so its rare that I don't see his car sitting on the street, and I've peeked inside before, wondering what all kinds of gizmos are in there. And NOWHERE have I denied that they need those things to work, but when the politicians are trying to make laws against the rest of us doing the same thing it gets rather ridiculous. How about enforcing the laws already on the books instead of making more stupid redundant laws??? Oh wait, that would require using their brains, which is not most politicians strong suit.

[NascarGirl2448]

Are you going to apply that to all professions or just police officers?

We wouldn't want hypocricy..................

The point that most people keep missing, it seems, is that the laws the politicians seem to be wanting to make to supposedly "protect" us from ourselves are already on the books. Why they aren't smart enough to realize that I have no idea

[gdoane]

You try having an almost 2 hour commute each way every day and then tell me the cell phone isn't necessary. Besides, what good is a pay phone gonna do if you're stranded on the side of the highway because your car just broke down? Not gonna be much good if the nearest exit is a couple miles away.

That's what a ham radio (or CB if you don't want to be licensed) is for. That's what I did in the 70's and 80's. Americans got along for a couple of hundred years without cell phones. Christopher Columbus never had a cell phone and he did a couple hour commutes.

I've seen the inside of a police cruiser, thank you. My neighbor is sheriff's deputy, so its rare that I don't see his car sitting on the street, and I've peeked inside before, wondering what all kinds of gizmos are in there. And NOWHERE have I denied that they need those things to work, but when the politicians are trying to make laws against the rest of us doing the same thing it gets rather ridiculous. How about enforcing the laws already on the books instead of making more stupid redundant laws??? Oh wait, that would require using their brains, which is not most politicians strong suit.

It's not the same thing. Using a cell phone is not the same thing as using a radio. Using a cell phone is the same thing as using a telephone.

[DLaw911]

You try having an almost 2 hour commute each way every day and then tell me the cell phone isn't necessary.Cells phones are a convenience and that's all. What did people do before cell phones were invented -- die like flys on the road?
Besides, what good is a pay phone gonna do if you're stranded on the side of the highway because your car just broke down? Not gonna be much good if the nearest exit is a couple miles away.Most freeways have emergency call boxes but, hey you just MADE MY POINT. If you are parked on the side of the freeway than FEEL FREE to dial, talk, text, and email to your hearts content. And pleeeeeeeeeeeze read what I said before grumbling all over me. I said I have no objection to hands free cell communications. I just don't want people taking their eyes off the road to dial, text, read and send emails.
[quotre]I've seen the inside of a police cruiser, thank you. My neighbor is sheriff's deputy, so its rare that I don't see his car sitting on the street, and I've peeked inside before, wondering what all kinds of gizmos are in there. And NOWHERE have I denied that they need those things to work, but when the politicians are trying to make laws against the rest of us doing the same thing it gets rather ridiculous. How about enforcing the laws already on the books instead of making more stupid redundant laws??? Oh wait, that would require using their brains, which is not most politicians strong suit.[/quote]The laws are not redundant because they are a necessary componnt of civil liability. Presumed negligence is an important theory of law and works both for the plaintiff and the defendant. If someone runs into your vehicle while holding a cell phone glued to his ear would you rather spend $100,000 proving he was negligent, or simply prove he was illegally using a cell phone and force him to prove he was not negligent? But of course you're not willing to think about those things. You think that only hands-free cell phone laws are meant to raise money for the government.

Seriously - I hope you are never injured by one of these careless drivers. But I am 100% convinced that one day I am going to be killed or seriously injured by some guy dialing a phone number holding his phone on his lap. I have come ->||<- close to serious accidents. I have had cell phone drivers drift into my lane going 80+ mph. I have had cell phone drivers make left turns DEAD in front of me. I have had cell phone drivers come at me on the wrong side of the street passing up other traffic. This morning a cell phone driver, holding the phone to her left ear with hear left hand and her left arm resting on the window jam, without turning her head changes over 5 lanes of traffic at once to make an exit and almost causes a major accident. I don't know where you live, but here in SoCal drivers live on borrowed time.

[malnila]

The point that most people keep missing, it seems, is that the laws the politicians seem to be wanting to make to supposedly "protect" us from ourselves are already on the books. Why they aren't smart enough to realize that I have no idea

Enlighten me....we already have a law on the books that some yahoo can't text while driving - which for some means two hands to type and hold??? I think you're just tired of laws and are choosing this law to take a stand. Alrighty by me. Just stay away from Southern California - we have enough of those like you here who only care about themselves instead of the thousands of others who share the road.

[NascarGirl2448]

But I am 100% convinced that one day I am going to be killed or seriously injured by some guy dialing a phone number holding his phone on his lap. I have come ->||<- close to serious accidents. I have had cell phone drivers drift into my lane going 80+ mph. I have had cell phone drivers make left turns DEAD in front of me. I have had cell phone drivers come at me on the wrong side of the street passing up other traffic. This morning a cell phone driver, holding the phone to her left ear with hear left hand and her left arm resting on the window jam, without turning her head changes over 5 lanes of traffic at once to make an exit and almost causes a major accident. I don't know where you live, but here in SoCal drivers live on borrowed time.

There's the problem. California drivers are absolutely horrible, no matter what part of the state you're in. And I say this after having spent considerable time in several parts of the state.

North Carolina has its fair share of idiot drivers, but when it comes to stupid people behind the wheel, California has got to take the cake.

[NascarGirl2448]

Enlighten me....we already have a law on the books that some yahoo can't text while driving - which for some means two hands to type and hold??? I think you're just tired of laws and are choosing this law to take a stand. Alrighty by me. Just stay away from Southern California - we have enough of those like you here who only care about themselves instead of the thousands of others who share the road.

Such things are already covered by laws against careless and reckless driving, whether someone is yapping on their cell phone or messing with the kids in the backseat. However the politicians who have nothing better to do than make more laws either don't want to or just plain can't realize that enforcing the laws that are already on the books is going to cover all the things they are trying to outlaw.

As for staying out of SoCal, no can do. Got family in that part of the state and still intend to go out and visit whenever I get the chance.

[Buffalo]

The reality is that the police do not have the resources to look for drivers who are eating, putting on makeup, tuning their radios or texting. If they observe it they are not required to issue a citation. I have one friend who has now been cited three times for texting while driving and in each case he was dialing a phone number (so he says).

But you're missing the point and I will try to spell it out for you. The law of negligence is primiliary based on a theory of breach of a duty of due care to others. Usually this has to be proven by specific conduct. But also in the law is the theory of "negligence per se" by violation of a statute designed to protect and prevent the type of harm that occurred. This creates a presumption of negligence and makes the case much easier to prove since the only defense would be whether or not the violation of the statute should be excused. So why is this important? In negligence trials it is often necessary to bring in experts to prove that the defendant breached a duty of due care. But negligence is so much easier to prove when the party sued is breaking the law meant to protect from the harm that occurred.

Compare that to a food case. The law requires that food in restaurants be stored at certain temperatures. Turns out the refrigerator was broken, the temperature was not checked, bacteria formed on sushi that was served, and a customer dies. Why should the family of the customer have to go through the hoops of proving the restaurant was negligent. Without neglience per se they could argue they were not required to manually check refrigerator temperature, that it seemed cold enough, and that this was an unfortunate accident. But with a violation of statute theory negligence would be presumed and the only issue would be the amount of damages to be awarded.
Thanks for "spelling that out " for me. So now can you "spell it out" why the other things I mentioned are not offenses worthy of citation? Or why auto manufacturers are allowed to install radios or aftermarket radio installers are allowed to exist? They too are distractions and studies have proven them a danger.
http://www.drivers.com/article/423/
The only reasonable argument made so far is by SFC, and that is so many idiots can't do it that people who can have to pay the consequences because of them.

[Buffalo]

I drove my Caprice in Europe...it didn't have any, either.

And until you have driven 150 MPH you have not driven.
I would love it. My buddy had business in Germany and told me a bit about it. Driving 120 mph and getting passed like nothing by other cars. Sounds crazy and amazing.

[SFC(R)L]

I would love it. My buddy had business in Germany and told me a bit about it. Driving 120 mph and getting passed like nothing by other cars. Sounds crazy and amazing.

I was passed on the right on Autobahn 3 by a middle aged German dude in a Mercedes. There were 4 lanes, and he was to my right.

I was going about 125 MPH (Caprice's max) and this guy passed me and flipped me off.

It is also possible to be going this fast and look left as a German passes you easily, with 2-3 kids in the back seat.

I was also passed at 125 MPH by a vehicle that was red and went past so fast that I still have no idea what it was. It was below my door handle height.

When I was going 150 MPH or so, I took the S-curve chicane between Vilseck and Freihung/Tanzfleck at @ 110 MPH.

Very invigorating.

[Remus Lupin]

I would love it. My buddy had business in Germany and told me a bit about it. Driving 120 mph and getting passed like nothing by other cars. Sounds crazy and amazing.

And destroy their own engines in the process.
An engine in a car can only take so much. I don't even like to go 70 miles per hour on the freeway for that reason.

[Buffalo]

And destroy their own engines in the process.
An engine in a car can only take so much. I don't even like to go 70 miles per hour on the freeway for that reason.
I believe we are speaking of a different class of vehicle. Most of the cars doing this are built to do this.

[SFC(R)L]

And destroy their own engines in the process.
An engine in a car can only take so much. I don't even like to go 70 miles per hour on the freeway for that reason.

Uhmm...nope.

A German spec BMW or Mercedes is actually a slice of heaven so magnificent that it defies description.

But I never said that.

[Buffalo]

uhmm...nope.

A german spec bmw or mercedes is actually a slice of heaven so magnificent that it defies description.

But i never said that.
m5

[SFC(R)L]

m5

I am partial to the BMW 7 series

[SFC(R)L]

anyway, I have driven.

And it's serious business for serious people.

It's a science and an art.

and there is no place for cell phones in it.

[Buffalo]

I am partial to the BMW 7 series
;)
those are very nice

how bout Mercedes SLR

[malnila]

Such things are already covered by laws against careless and reckless driving, whether someone is yapping on their cell phone or messing with the kids in the backseat. However the politicians who have nothing better to do than make more laws either don't want to or just plain can't realize that enforcing the laws that are already on the books is going to cover all the things they are trying to outlaw.

As for staying out of SoCal, no can do. Got family in that part of the state and still intend to go out and visit whenever I get the chance.

Next time you visit, please be mindful that WE DO HAVE LAWS against talking on the cellphone unless handsfree AND NO TEXTING PERIOD!!!!

[Remus Lupin]

Again, if you don't like the laws regarding cell phone use in cars, DON'T DRIVE!
Driving again is a privilege, NOT a right. If I don't follow the traffics laws, the court has the RIGHT to yank my drivers license away.
I don't agree with the seat belt laws, BUT I still have a obligation to make sure
everyone in my car including myself is buckled in.

The thing is way too many people are getting into car accidents because of being on their phones.

[SFC(R)L]

;)
those are very nice

how bout Mercedes SLR

I guess I'm a BMW guy

[malnila]

Again, if you don't like the laws regarding cell phone use in cars, DON'T DRIVE!
Driving again is a privilege, NOT a right. If I don't follow the traffics laws, the court has the RIGHT to yank my drivers license away.
I don't agree with the seat belt laws, BUT I still have a obligation to make sure
everyone in my car including myself is buckled in.

The thing is way too many people are getting into car accidents because of being on their phones.

Thank you. Good post.

[Remus Lupin]

Thank you. Good post.

No problem!

[chip]

Driving again is a privilege, NOT a right.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

[Remus Lupin]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

Because it is worth repeating my friend.
It is not non sense, no mater what you believe.
Driving in this country IS NOT A RIGHT. Anyone can see.

[chip]

Because it is worth repeating my friend.
It is not non sense, no mater what you believe.
Driving in this country IS NOT A RIGHT. Anyone can see.

Yes it is, the courts have even ruled as such. Repeating nonsense doesnt make it true.

[gdoane]

Again, if you don't like the laws regarding cell phone use in cars, DON'T DRIVE!
Driving again is a privilege, NOT a right. If I don't follow the traffics laws, the court has the RIGHT to yank my drivers license away.
I don't agree with the seat belt laws, BUT I still have a obligation to make sure
everyone in my car including myself is buckled in.

The thing is way too many people are getting into car accidents because of being on their phones.

Cell phones get people out of accidents too. I don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement about cell phones being able to call in an emergency.

Outlaw cell phones being on the road. Go ahead. Make it so that even carrying a cell phone in a vehicle is a felony punishable by five to ten years, and then see how many people die because nobody on the scene of the accident can find a pay phone to call an ambulance.

The arguments against all cell phones being outlawed fail to recognize the good things that cell phones do.

[jimjames418]

Driving again is a privilege, NOT a right.
Driving on your own private property is a right. Driving on a hi-way paid for and maintained by tax money is a privilege. Which can be taken away if you break the rules.

Just like voting is a right. But you can lose the right by being a convicted felon.

[SFC(R)L]

Cell phones get people out of accidents too. I don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement about cell phones being able to call in an emergency.

Outlaw cell phones being on the road. Go ahead. Make it so that even carrying a cell phone in a vehicle is a felony punishable by five to ten years, and then see how many people die because nobody on the scene of the accident can find a pay phone to call an ambulance.

The arguments against all cell phones being outlawed fail to recognize the good things that cell phones do.

We just want them to pull over.

Just this AM, in heavy rain, with limited visibility, the dizzy woman in the minivan on my left weaved into my lane 3 times, and only regained her lane position following my repeated sounding of my horn and flashing my lights.

When I got alongside of her, in order to get away from her stupid ass, through her foggy windows I could see her trying to drive while simultaneously attempting to sip her drink from her cup which was the size of the space shuttle.

[Sinister Rouge]

Cell phones get people out of accidents too. I don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement about cell phones being able to call in an emergency.

Outlaw cell phones being on the road. Go ahead. Make it so that even carrying a cell phone in a vehicle is a felony punishable by five to ten years, and then see how many people die because nobody on the scene of the accident can find a pay phone to call an ambulance.

The arguments against all cell phones being outlawed fail to recognize the good things that cell phones do.


You're changing the argument. We're not debating banning cell phones from cars, we're debating whether drivers should be allowed to use them while they drive. There's a huge difference. You're setting up a straw man.

[Sinister Rouge]

Uhmm...nope.

A German spec BMW or Mercedes is actually a slice of heaven so magnificent that it defies description.

But I never said that.



A Mercedes isn't a car.



It's an automobile.

[chip]

Driving on your own private property is a right. Driving on a hi-way paid for and maintained by tax money is a privilege. Which can be taken away if you break the rules.

Just like voting is a right. But you can lose the right by being a convicted felon.

Again.

Driving on hi-ways paid for and maintained by tax money is a right, not a privilege.

[Buffalo]

A Mercedes isn't a car.



It's an automobile.
A Mercedes SLR McLaren isn't just an automobile.



It's spectacular.

[DLaw911]

Again.

Driving on hi-ways paid for and maintained by tax money is a right, not a privilege.My tax money also goes to pay for the runway at LAX. Can I drive there too?

How about the car pool lane? I paid for that?

In fact I also paid for the shoulder of the road. Why can't I drive there?

[chip]

My tax money also goes to pay for the runway at LAX. Can I drive there too?

How about the car pool lane? I paid for that?

In fact I also paid for the shoulder of the road. Why can't I drive there?

Are you really this ignorant?

[NascarGirl2448]

Next time you visit, please be mindful that WE DO HAVE LAWS against talking on the cellphone unless handsfree AND NO TEXTING PERIOD!!!!

California is the biggest nanny state I know. No wonder they have a bunch of stupid laws about the same danged subjects.

[quatrobird]

There is no law against cell phones in Texas. There were three vehicles involved in this accident. Has anyone seen the pictures of the entire back end of this young girl’s vehicle pushed in a "V" almost to where she sat in the driver seat? Did this huge, red F250 truck with a cattle guard have anything to do with this ACCIDENT, or the path her small vehicle took? Did this large vehicle change the path she originally wanted to take?

[quatrobird]

There were three vehicles involved in this accident. Has anyone seen the pictures of the entire back end of this young girl’s vehicle pushed in a "V" almost to where she sat in the driver seat? Did this huge, red F250 truck with a cattle guard have anything to do with this ACCIDENT, or the path her small vehicle took? Did this large vehicle change the path she originally wanted to take?

Be honest with yourself have you ever driven and used a cell phone? Was it ever really proven that she was actually on the cell phone or is this just a bunch of hype from the news media and a DA trying to make a political name for himself? Did anyone listen on the news about the juror who said it was never proven that she was on the phone? She indicated their deliberated entirely on an improper lane change. I doubt anyone finds the news media or a District Attorney are looking out for our best interest???. They are out to make a name for themselves at the sake of anyone or everyone even a very young girl.

From what I am seeing about these blogs opinions are based on anger from being cut off in traffic by someone else on a cell phone and transferring that anger to this young woman. Is this justice? Is she a murder? The news has said she has "NO" previous record. She could be your daughter, granddaughter, sister etc.

Most importantly, this affects you.. Does anyone understand the legal term “Precedence”? Next time you are involved in an “ACCIDENT” will the State of Texas charge “YOU” with murder? This is all new type of case because there is no law against cell phone use while driving and in legal terms sets a precedent. What does that means? This swings opens a very wide door. Anyone and everyone is now at risk of being charged with murder in a accident case. This is how it is done. We will all pay for this decision, but this DA will now have his name on a new law, if that makes you feel any better.

[DLaw911]

There were three vehicles involved in this accident. Has anyone seen the pictures of the entire back end of this young girl’s vehicle pushed in a "V" almost to where she sat in the driver seat? Did this huge, red F250 truck with a cattle guard have anything to do with this ACCIDENT, or the path her small vehicle took? Did this large vehicle change the path she originally wanted to take?

Be honest with yourself have you ever driven and used a cell phone? Was it ever really proven that she was actually on the cell phone or is this just a bunch of hype from the news media and a DA trying to make a political name for himself? Did anyone listen on the news about the juror who said it was never proven that she was on the phone? She indicated their deliberated entirely on an improper lane change. I doubt anyone finds the news media or a District Attorney are looking out for our best interest???. They are out to make a name for themselves at the sake of anyone or everyone even a very young girl.

From what I am seeing about these blogs opinions are based on anger from being cut off in traffic by someone else on a cell phone and transferring that anger to this young woman. Is this justice? Is she a murder? The news has said she has "NO" previous record. She could be your daughter, granddaughter, sister etc.

Most importantly, this affects you.. Does anyone understand the legal term “Precedence”? Next time you are involved in an “ACCIDENT” will the State of Texas charge “YOU” with murder? This is all new type of case because there is no law against cell phone use while driving and in legal terms sets a precedent. What does that means? This swings opens a very wide door. Anyone and everyone is now at risk of being charged with murder in a accident case. This is how it is done. We will all pay for this decision, but this DA will now have his name on a new law, if that makes you feel any better.A jury verdict is not precedent!

[chip]

30 days in jail. 10 years probation 10,000 dollar fine

[SFC(R)L]

There were three vehicles involved in this accident. Has anyone seen the pictures of the entire back end of this young girl’s vehicle pushed in a "V" almost to where she sat in the driver seat? Did this huge, red F250 truck with a cattle guard have anything to do with this ACCIDENT, or the path her small vehicle took? Did this large vehicle change the path she originally wanted to take?

Be honest with yourself have you ever driven and used a cell phone? Was it ever really proven that she was actually on the cell phone or is this just a bunch of hype from the news media and a DA trying to make a political name for himself? Did anyone listen on the news about the juror who said it was never proven that she was on the phone? She indicated their deliberated entirely on an improper lane change. I doubt anyone finds the news media or a District Attorney are looking out for our best interest???. They are out to make a name for themselves at the sake of anyone or everyone even a very young girl.

From what I am seeing about these blogs opinions are based on anger from being cut off in traffic by someone else on a cell phone and transferring that anger to this young woman. Is this justice? Is she a murder? The news has said she has "NO" previous record. She could be your daughter, granddaughter, sister etc.

Most importantly, this affects you.. Does anyone understand the legal term “Precedence”? Next time you are involved in an “ACCIDENT” will the State of Texas charge “YOU” with murder? This is all new type of case because there is no law against cell phone use while driving and in legal terms sets a precedent. What does that means? This swings opens a very wide door. Anyone and everyone is now at risk of being charged with murder in a accident case. This is how it is done. We will all pay for this decision, but this DA will now have his name on a new law, if that makes you feel any better.

The case was heard by a jury.

I am sure they reviewed all the evidence, including the cell phone records of her being on the phone as she caused this incident. While tragic, she must be held accountable for her actions and the death she caused. That's the law.

An "Accident" is when something happens that is beyond the reasonable control of those involved. Say, like when a deer runs in front of a police vehicle responding to an emergency, causes a wreck, and kills the officer. Just happened here the other night. Tragic, but no one is reasonably at fault.

Conversely, negligence is when one is conducting oneself in an activity which carries a duty of acting responsibly or safely, and willfully failing to do so, placing others in danger. That's what driving while using a cellphone is exactly: negligent, selfish behavior that places the lives of others in danger with callous disregard for public safety and the health and welfare of innocent people exercising their right to navigate the public roadway without being endangered by you.

People who do it and threaten the safety of others should have their privilege to operate motor vehicles on the public roads permanently revoked; and those who cause death in the process should be held accountable, and punished to the maximum extent of the law based upon the facts and circumstances involved.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Juries never get it wrong.......................